Crime against humanity in Ukraine. Civilians killed

[Dear Mami]

Termie, as a matter of fact, ONLY the Ukrainians have anything to gain from a scene of deliberately massacred civilians in an area the Russians have just left. Tell me what the Russians have to gain from leaving civilians they had targeted for the world to see. That's exactly my number one reason for doubting this till investigations: smells too much like Syria.

I don't look at ANY of these videos for the same reason I haven't seen a horror flick in like 15 years. But what I've read from third parties is opposite of what you're saying. It's Ukrainians, not Russians who've been caught on video deliberately shooting at/targetting civilians as opposed to hitting them as casualties of war between the two militaries. Civilian areas (like the apartment building) hit by Russians haven't been denied but are subject of counter-accusations btw the two sides as the Russians claim they've been militarized (used as human shields). But even those ones, I haven't seen as I never click play. I only point it out because your post indicates you're only aware of one side of these visual media coming out of that place. Understandable, given the tech giants are unabashedly going after pro-Russian posting. For me, I treat them all like wartime propaganda, which is why Ive never bothered to post or retweet a single one here or anywhere.

And unlike you, I am not going to elevate NYT and the other papers. Why should I do that? As if I didn't know they are JUST as biased even within their own internal politics as many other papers? They have been forwarding Ukrainian versions and shutting down Russian just like everyone else. Even when they report on the other side, they make sure to downplay anything that bluntly counters the prevailing narrative. They are pushing the current establishment story like the entire Western media. They are NOT impartial. Besides, these satellite pics Noway is referring to have also been reported by NYT and more importantly, NYT haven't been on the ground. What you keep missing here is the lack of independent reporting from Ukraine and the draconian controls both countries have been practicing throughout March in terms of media.

In fact, the only on-the-ground reporting I've seen, from Maripol, is this American named something like Patrick Lancaster (I could be getting his second name wrong) and he has shown nothing like widespread civilian resistance to Russia in his area. Most civilians just seem to keep out of trouble from his reports, and many of the ones he has interviewed in Maripol have good things to say about the Russians. That they left them alone and even traded with them for food. Even in his case, given the lack of freedom of the press currently, who knows what his arrangement is over there? If he's truly independent? No one. There's another Ukrainian from Bucha saying the same there about the Russian 4 week occupation. For the most part no one outside knows anything but what each of these sides would like to share.

I understand back in the day they used to have a designated 'truth-teller' mostly Finland; who would go into the war zone and report on what was happening from an independent perspective. No one is doing that there anymore. If the UN sets up a team, it'll be the first one to do that so far, because if their access is hindered like the others are (where they can only access pre-selected places etc etc) they'll also report on  said hinderance.

[Dear Mami]

I came back to delete this last post of mine^^^ and replace it with what I'm now posting here, but alas! The time has run out even for modification. If a mod can do it for me, I'd be grateful.  I'm not participating in this topic anymore till the investigation is underway. There's just no point. 

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Termie, as a matter of fact, ONLY the Ukrainians have anything to gain from a scene of deliberately massacred civilians in an area the Russians have just left. Tell me what the Russians have to gain from leaving civilians they had targeted for the world to see. That's exactly my number one reason for doubting this till investigations: smells too much like Syria.

I don't look at ANY of these videos for the same reason I haven't seen a horror flick in like 15 years. But what I've read from third parties is opposite of what you're saying. It's Ukrainians, not Russians who've been caught on video deliberately shooting at/targetting civilians as opposed to hitting them as casualties of war between the two militaries. Civilian areas (like the apartment building) hit by Russians haven't been denied but are subject of counter-accusations btw the two sides as the Russians claim they've been militarized (used as human shields). But even those ones, I haven't seen as I never click play. I only point it out because your post indicates you're only aware of one side of these visual media coming out of that place. Understandable, given the tech giants are unabashedly going after pro-Russian posting. For me, I treat them all like wartime propaganda, which is why Ive never bothered to post or retweet a single one here or anywhere.

And unlike you, I am not going to elevate NYT and the other papers. Why should I do that? As if I didn't know they are JUST as biased even within their own internal politics as many other papers? They have been forwarding Ukrainian versions and shutting down Russian just like everyone else. Even when they report on the other side, they make sure to downplay anything that bluntly counters the prevailing narrative. They are pushing the current establishment story like the entire Western media. They are NOT impartial. Besides, these satellite pics Noway is referring to have also been reported by NYT and more importantly, NYT haven't been on the ground. What you keep missing here is the lack of independent reporting from Ukraine and the draconian controls both countries have been practicing throughout March in terms of media.

In fact, the only on-the-ground reporting I've seen, from Maripol, is this American named something like Patrick Lancaster (I could be getting his second name wrong) and he has shown nothing like widespread civilian resistance to Russia in his area. Most civilians just seem to keep out of trouble from his reports, and many of the ones he has interviewed in Maripol have good things to say about the Russians. That they left them alone and even traded with them for food. Even in his case, given the lack of freedom of the press currently, who knows what his arrangement is over there? If he's truly independent? No one. There's another Ukrainian from Bucha saying the same there about the Russian 4 week occupation. For the most part no one outside knows anything but what each of these sides would like to share.

I understand back in the day they used to have a designated 'truth-teller' mostly Finland; who would go into the war zone and report on what was happening from an independent perspective. No one is doing that there anymore. If the UN sets up a team, it'll be the first one to do that so far, because if their access is hindered like the others are (where they can only access pre-selected places etc etc) they'll also report on  said hinderance.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I came back to delete this last post of mine^^^ and replace it with what I'm now posting here, but alas! The time has run out even for modification. If a mod can do it for me, I'd be grateful.  I'm not participating in this topic anymore till the investigation is underway. There's just no point. 

I already posted a response before I saw this.  A healthy and profound difference of opinion me thinks.

[Dear Mami]

No problem. Just to clarify my own position, after reading this,

Merely reporting that this war is a Russian invasion which has been condemned at the UN and continues to be waged in defiance of the UN international court immediately casts you in the anti-Russian camp.

I'll just say, for me, there's no question Russia's war is illegal as far as a breach of the Law of War (Use of Force). My criticism/attitude toward the West isn't based on my thinking that that's in question, but rather on realpolitik or International Relations (not Law).

Use of Force and International Humanitarian Law are two separate systems of Law. One prescribes when it's lawful/unlawful for a state to launch war, defend itself with war, etc. To me, there's no question Russia is guilty as far as this law is concerned for the simple reason it wasn't attacked first, nor threatened with an imminent attack so that it could've legitimately launched the war first to defend itself.

The other Law is about the conduct of the war itself, once launched (IHL) and its aim is mainly to shield civilian targets (people/places, including those there to help or report) from war and POWs from inhumane treatment. It's in this second Law that for me there remain questions to be answered with further info, not the first. As far as I understand Russia is in breach of the Rule prohibiting launching war against another country.

Now, about the videos, I can't  Those images don't leave my head for a while, once I've seen them, and yet there's no positive contribution I could make to those experiencing whatever I've seen. I'd just be tormented, and that's it.

I'll now hopefully avoid responding until at least the UN comes up with a report. As I said before, I'm all for the ICC and similar bringing to book these individuals and Russia being sued at the ICJ for them, if they happened. They will obviously be sued for launching the war itself, in any case. Let's hope they actually obey the court once it has determined their responsibility like European states tend to do, and not be rebellious like the US, China, and even our own .ke (recently) have been.

[Dear Mami]

See, Termie: even the Pentagon is taking a similarly careful approach to Bucha, as I am. Here, they are refusing to confirm the claims or refute them, unlike papers like the NYT. https://www.reuters.com/world/pentagon-cant-independently-confirm-atrocities-ukraines-bucha-official-says-2022-04-04/

See, I'm not being crazy here, These things are complex. Remember, the Pentagon is far more an expert on IHL than NYT since the military has to apply these rules in real life in America's many wars. They insist in that article that they have the same images everyone else has and no more and so refuse to confirm or refute, though they state it in a manner sensitive to Ukraine. I bet they, too, are waiting for an independent team of experts to take over the scene and issue reports before they commit to anything stronger regarding Bucha? My sense.

[Nowayhaha]

Dear Mami good point you are bringing.The United nations was a noble idea which could have been used to maintain peace and settle disputes . However as we have experienced it has been used by U.S. to settle political scores by passed by U.S. on several decisions to go to war. I believe Russia would not have by passed U.N.S.C . on the operation in Ukraine if U.S. didnt by pass on the Iraq afghanistan war .
U.N. is now on its deathbed just waiting for another World War to become obsolute like League of Nations.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

See, Termie: even the Pentagon is taking a similarly careful approach to Bucha, as I am. Here, they are refusing to confirm the claims or refute them, unlike papers like the NYT. https://www.reuters.com/world/pentagon-cant-independently-confirm-atrocities-ukraines-bucha-official-says-2022-04-04/

See, I'm not being crazy here, These things are complex. Remember, the Pentagon is far more an expert on IHL than NYT since the military has to apply these rules in real life in America's many wars. They insist in that article that they have the same images everyone else has and no more and so refuse to confirm or refute, though they state it in a manner sensitive to Ukraine. I bet they, too, are waiting for an independent team of experts to take over the scene and issue reports before they commit to anything stronger regarding Bucha? My sense.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

No problem. Just to clarify my own position, after reading this,

Merely reporting that this war is a Russian invasion which has been condemned at the UN and continues to be waged in defiance of the UN international court immediately casts you in the anti-Russian camp.

I'll just say, for me, there's no question Russia's war is illegal as far as a breach of the Law of War (Use of Force). My criticism/attitude toward the West isn't based on my thinking that that's in question, but rather on realpolitik or International Relations (not Law).

Use of Force and International Humanitarian Law are two separate systems of Law. One prescribes when it's lawful/unlawful for a state to launch war, defend itself with war, etc. To me, there's no question Russia is guilty as far as this law is concerned for the simple reason it wasn't attacked first, nor threatened with an imminent attack so that it could've legitimately launched the war first to defend itself.

The other Law is about the conduct of the war itself, once launched (IHL) and its aim is mainly to shield civilian targets (people/places, including those there to help or report) from war and POWs from inhumane treatment. It's in this second Law that for me there remain questions to be answered with further info, not the first. As far as I understand Russia is in breach of the Rule prohibiting launching war against another country.

Now, about the videos, I can't  Those images don't leave my head for a while, once I've seen them, and yet there's no positive contribution I could make to those experiencing whatever I've seen. I'd just be tormented, and that's it.

I'll now hopefully avoid responding until at least the UN comes up with a report. As I said before, I'm all for the ICC and similar bringing to book these individuals and Russia being sued at the ICJ for them, if they happened. They will obviously be sued for launching the war itself, in any case. Let's hope they actually obey the court once it has determined their responsibility like European states tend to do, and not be rebellious like the US, China, and even our own .ke (recently) have been.

That's why if you watch the videos, you will have fewer doubts, IMO, that these violations are occurring and both sides incriminated in different instances.  In the East, I can rationalize both Ukrainian and Russian atrocities where you have a large segment of the population sympathetic to Russia.  In Kyiv, it's a bit more difficult to find a rationale for Ukrainian atrocities against an otherwise supportive population. 

In either case you will find some individual acts that don't necessarily indict - or reflect the overall behavior of - one or the other side.  A Russian rescuing cat here.  A Ukrainian attacking a civilian in Kyiv. etc

In general, I am favoring the perspective of a Ukrainian person caught in the middle.  From that perspective, life would be better if the Russians never came in the first place.  They get to decide how much pain they are willing to endure to be free from Russian domination.

[Dear Mami]

Oh, Termie, but Biden is a politician. Particularly the one most interested in destroying Russia: A sitting American president. There's no way I'd trust what he says without proof in a war like this where his country is engaged in a proxy war with the 'accused' country.

I mentioned the Pentagon because the Law concerned here is 'theirs' to put it crudely: Professional militaries, especially with extensive experience in applying this law in their law formulations, combat, and trials. Their reluctance signals to me an entity that actually knows what it takes to successfully investigate, prosecute, and prove war crimes. When they say they are looking at the same images everyone is, they're saying flatly what the media never says but should start with: they, too, have no better info. That's my  only point.

Now this business of watching real life people being tortured or blown to bits . . . I really, really will struggle to do. I can't even watch horror flicks, knowing it's fiction. Now seeing horrific scenese while fully aware they are NOT fiction . . . That's a very tough pill.

[Dear Mami]

Dear Mami good point you are bringing.The United nations was a noble idea which could have been used to maintain peace and settle disputes . However as we have experienced it has been used by U.S. to settle political scores by passed by U.S. on several decisions to go to war. I believe Russia would not have by passed U.N.S.C . on the operation in Ukraine if U.S. didnt by pass on the Iraq afghanistan war .
U.N. is now on its deathbed just waiting for another World War to become obsolute like League of Nations.

Noway, I maintain hope, knowing fully well the weaknesses of this system. We don't have an alter ative at the moment. Of course when it's the big boys being bad, like these super power economies and militaries, the weaknesses shine brightest. However, there are other areas it serves us well. I believe without it we would have seen continual wars like used to be prior.

IHL precedes the UN system btw. It's the Geneva system and is like 150 years old or so (but in phases). To me, it's the most sacred part of International Law. It's still very pure, even though misused by countries. I hold the greatest respect for the ICRC. Other parts International Law are very heavily impacted by politics even in the very devising of rules/norms, wacha application. For me, International Humanitarian Law is something that will be there even after UN is replaced by a different system. 

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Oh, Termie, but Biden is a politician. Particularly the one most interested in destroying Russia: A sitting American president. There's no way I'd trust what he says without proof in a war like this where his country is engaged in a proxy war with the 'accused' country.

I mentioned the Pentagon because the Law concerned here is 'theirs' to put it crudely: Professional militaries, especially with extensive experience in applying this law in their law formulations, combat, and trials. Their reluctance signals to me an entity that actually knows what it takes to successfully investigate, prosecute, and prove war crimes. When they say they are looking at the same images everyone is, they're saying flatly what the media never says but should start with: they, too, have no better info. That's my  only point.

Now this business of watching real life people being tortured or blown to bits . . . I really, really will struggle to do. I can't even watch horror flicks, knowing it's fiction. Now seeing horrific scenese while fully aware they are NOT fiction . . . That's a very tough pill.

I really don't know who to believe between the Pentagon and Biden(and the White House).  The White House harbors no doubts, the Pentagon is more cautious.  Either way, they are both partisans on this matter so I don't put any more stock in what the White House or the Pentagon says than the Kremlin for that reason.  They have great resources and reach, but they are also partisan.

[Nowayhaha]

Pentagon is more proffesional and seems to use data and facts to come into conclusions. When Biden and Blinken (Bidens policy maker) were all up threatening that NATO could go to war with Russia at the begining. It was Pentagon who came out clearly and ponted out NATO was not prepared and any war with Russia would become world war 3 and Nuclear would wipe out the whole world.
When Blinken went to the media and said NATO would give Ukraine Fighter Jets, It Pentagon who came out clearly again and said that was a bad idea and a single mistake could lead to a World War 3.
Now you can see their reaction on Bucha.
This all goes down to one fact . State Department operators are either young or want a drastic circumstance or make policys to reflect the people high up in the office. Pentagon has career Military officers , There is continuity and their policy is devoid of adventrusim.
I take Lloyd Austin more seriously than Blinken.

Oh, Termie, but Biden is a politician. Particularly the one most interested in destroying Russia: A sitting American president. There's no way I'd trust what he says without proof in a war like this where his country is engaged in a proxy war with the 'accused' country.

I mentioned the Pentagon because the Law concerned here is 'theirs' to put it crudely: Professional militaries, especially with extensive experience in applying this law in their law formulations, combat, and trials. Their reluctance signals to me an entity that actually knows what it takes to successfully investigate, prosecute, and prove war crimes. When they say they are looking at the same images everyone is, they're saying flatly what the media never says but should start with: they, too, have no better info. That's my  only point.

Now this business of watching real life people being tortured or blown to bits . . . I really, really will struggle to do. I can't even watch horror flicks, knowing it's fiction. Now seeing horrific scenese while fully aware they are NOT fiction . . . That's a very tough pill.

I really don't know who to believe between the Pentagon and Biden(and the White House).  The White House harbors no doubts, the Pentagon is more cautious.  Either way, they are both partisans on this matter so I don't put any more stock in what the White House or the Pentagon says than the Kremlin for that reason.  They have great resources and reach, but they are also partisan.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Pentagon is more proffesional and seems to use data and facts to come into conclusions. When Biden and Blinken (Bidens policy maker) were all up threatening that NATO could go to war with Russia at the begining. It was Pentagon who came out clearly and ponted out NATO was not prepared and any war with Russia would become world war 3 and Nuclear would wipe out the whole world.
When Blinken went to the media and said NATO would give Ukraine Fighter Jets, It Pentagon who came out clearly again and said that was a bad idea and a single mistake could lead to a World War 3.
Now you can see their reaction on Bucha.
This all goes down to one fact . State Department operators are either young or want a drastic circumstance or make policys to reflect the people high up in the office. Pentagon has career Military officers , There is continuity and their policy is devoid of adventrusim.
I take Lloyd Austin more seriously than Blinken.

Oh, Termie, but Biden is a politician. Particularly the one most interested in destroying Russia: A sitting American president. There's no way I'd trust what he says without proof in a war like this where his country is engaged in a proxy war with the 'accused' country.

I mentioned the Pentagon because the Law concerned here is 'theirs' to put it crudely: Professional militaries, especially with extensive experience in applying this law in their law formulations, combat, and trials. Their reluctance signals to me an entity that actually knows what it takes to successfully investigate, prosecute, and prove war crimes. When they say they are looking at the same images everyone is, they're saying flatly what the media never says but should start with: they, too, have no better info. That's my  only point.

Now this business of watching real life people being tortured or blown to bits . . . I really, really will struggle to do. I can't even watch horror flicks, knowing it's fiction. Now seeing horrific scenese while fully aware they are NOT fiction . . . That's a very tough pill.

I really don't know who to believe between the Pentagon and Biden(and the White House).  The White House harbors no doubts, the Pentagon is more cautious.  Either way, they are both partisans on this matter so I don't put any more stock in what the White House or the Pentagon says than the Kremlin for that reason.  They have great resources and reach, but they are also partisan.

But they'll say something you don't like 2 hours from now and suddenly become a propaganda outlet  .  Official government statements enjoy pride of place near the bottom of my trusted sources of information.

[Dear Mami]

I agree, Termie. They are loyal to their own side, for sure, even if more knowledgeable/professional about the Law of Armed Conflict, as it's their domain.